740.00112 European War 1939/7–2044: Telegram
The Minister in Sweden (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 12 p.m.]
2701. British Minister and I this afternoon met with Mr. Sohlman, head of the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office. Both of us made statements to him to following effect:
[Page 584]American and British Governments request Swedish Government to give them immediately an assurance that Swedish Government will not enter into any new commitment with the enemy with respect to export of any commodities without previous consultation with American and British Governments. Both of us likewise made the statement that our respective Governments of course could not accept any such new commitment as a valid reason for rendering impossible future requests for limitations of Swedish trade with Germany. We made it clear during course of discussion that “Germany” included also countries which are satellites of Germany and occupied territories, in fact all areas comprised within purview of Anglo-American-Swedish War Trade Agreement. See my 2683 of July 19, 8 p.m., (713 to London)3 and Department’s 1437, July 19, 1 p.m., (London No. not given).4
We likewise reiterated the attitude of our two Governments as already re-expressed through the JSC against permitting deliveries under contracts not completely fulfilled to be carried over for completion in the succeeding year.
Mr. Sohlman said that as far as he was now aware the Swedish meeting with German delegates to begin on July 25 did not contemplate any discussions for commitments in 1945. These mid-year meetings had in the past been usually concerned with the application of existing Swedish-German Trade Agreement and the Swedes almost invariably concentrated on various German failures to live up to their terms of the Agreement. German exports to Sweden under the Agreement during past 6 months have however exceeded all expectations and Sohlman was of the opinion that questions under the clearing would be at the forefront. He made the comment that there was a legal distinction between the 1944 and the 1945 situations inasmuch as there were definite ceilings for trading with Germany for 1944 agreed to by us. Mallet and I recognized that the situation for the 2 years was different in a technical sense but pointed out that existing contracts in a number of categories did not come up to the established ceilings of the Agreement and that we were asking the Swedes to make no new contracts even though they might fall within the upper limits of the ceilings, that the ceilings were maximum not minimum standards. Sohlman good-naturedly admitted this argument. He said that he would have to consult with the Government and in regard to the assurance we had requested would make every endeavor to give us a reply as soon as possible. He understands clearly [Page 585] that we expect and desire this reply before negotiations with the Germans are begun.
He then referred to the Trade Agreement with Norway which expired on July 1st and has not been renewed. Some of the contractual commitments under the Agreement have not yet been fulfilled and are being carried out on a carry-over basis. Trade with Norway which he said Sweden must continue particularly for importation of nitrates is being carried on through day-to-day basis and largely as barter transactions. Hägglöff off-the-record this morning stated that the Trade Agreement with Norway will not be renewed. Sohlman in effect admitted that this decision has been made but said that as he was talking officially he could not say so. Both Mallet and I stated that our Governments expect to be informed in detail of all exports and imports to Norway and Sohlman pointed out that this is in fact being done through the arrangement for delivery of statistics to us and through the machinery of the JSC.
Same situation obtains in regard to Denmark as the Swedish-Danish Trade Agreement expired on July 1st and Sohlman pointed out that in case of both Norway and Denmark but particularly of the latter Swedish problems from political psychological point of view in dealing with these occupied countries are much more difficult than any of the material factors. In the case of Denmark it is also definitely understood that our two Governments will be kept fully informed of all transactions. Sohlman furthermore emphasized that in case of all trade with Germany and her satellites and occupied countries the ceiling limits have been strictly adhered to and will continue to be adhered to.
Sohlman’s general attitude was understanding and reasonable. The attitude of Hägglöf with whom I had a long talk this morning was similar and I am confident that Hägglöf is attempting during his visit in Stockholm to influence various quarters in the Government to adopt a receptive attitude to the Allied request.
I venture most strongly to recommend that the Department permit no publicity to be given this démarche.
My 723, July 20, 7 p.m., repeats this to London.